Syarikat Sen Joo Heng Sdn Bhd v Pua Ching Kiau (BA-16-47-09/2024)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Director General of Manpower (DGM) dated 12.9 2024 ordering the Appellant to pay the Respondent termination benefits and salary in lieu of notice in the sum of RM16,058.83.

After careful consideration of the records of appeal and the submissions, this Court decided to allow the appeal. The following are the reasons for that decision. S/N NnMurlumgUJ1pVG0oPetw Proceedings before the DG

The Respondent worked as a part time packaging operator; in the Respondent company since 2015. She worked from 6:30 am till 6:00 pm packing candles and she was paid solely on piece rated work in cash every fortnight. There was no contract or any other documents to show her employment or salary. There were however deductions for the Employees Provident Fund and Social Security Organization.

The Respondent claimed termination benefits as she was verbally terminated on 28.8.2023 by Mr Low Khim Hong. She was told that she was no longer needed due to her age.

Although Mr Low resigned as a director in 2009, the Respondent believed him to still be in a position of authority because he remained present in the company and gave instructions regularly.

The Respondent was not paid her salary for August 2023 nor was she given any notice of her termination. She was not paid any termination benefits.

The Respondent on the other hand maintained that the Appellant stopped coming to work on her own accord. They denied Mr Low terminated the Respondent as he did not hold any position in the Appellant nor was he involved in the running of the operations.

The Respondent was only paid for the days she worked and her salary was calculated for piece rated work. She came to work on 28 and 29.8.2023 and was paid her salary for the second half of August 2023. The DGM’s decision

The DGM decided in favour of the Respondent and held that she was terminated by Mr Low on 28.8.2023. Her last working day was 29.8.2023.

He computed the benefits as follows – “… saya dengan ini membenarkan tuntutan pengadu untuk bayaran-bayaran seperti berikut:

Faedah-Faedah Penamatan RM11,693.72 dan Pemberhentian Kerja

Gaji Ganti Notis RM4,365.11 Jumlah RM16,058.83 S/N NnMurlumgUJ1pVG0oPetw Principles of law

Section 77 Employment Act 1955 (Act 265) provides that the procedure for an appeal to the High Court is the same procedure as an appeal from the Sessions Court.

The general principles of law in respect of the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court hearing appeals from the Subordinate Court is as pronounced in China Airlines Ltd v. Maltran Air Corp Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Maltran Air Services Corp Sdn Bhd and another appeal [1996] 2 MLJ 517 at 527 and UMW Motor Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Allan Chong Teck Hin [2021] 3 MLJ 107 at 117. Analysis and findings Was the Respondent terminated

This is purely a question of fact and the burden of proof is on the Respondent to establish that she was terminated by the Appellant (Weltex Knitwear Industries Sdn Bhd v, Law Kar Toy & Anor [1998] 7 MLJ 359 at 363).

On this issue, the DGM made the following observations – “Saya berpendapat, hujah pengadu bahawa di telah diambil bekerja oleh Encik Low Khim Hong adalah selamat untuk diterima memandangkan terdapat hujahan menyokong dimana Encik Loh Khim Hong adalah mengenali pengadu S/N NnMurlumgUJ1pVG0oPetw sebagai pekerja syarikat defendan, dan pengakuan Pengarah semasa syarikat iaitu Encik Low Hock Ann bahawa bapanya iaitu Encik Low Khim Hong mempunyai rutin untuk masih hadir melawat premis kilang syarikat defendan. Perkara ini adalah janggal sama sekali bagi sesorang bekas pengarah syarikat dimana syarikat itu diwarisi oleh 3 orang anaknya, jika ia sama sekali mahu dilepaskan untuk ditadbir sepenuhnya oleh anak-anaknya tetapi dia masih mempunyai rutin untuk sering hadir melawat Kawasan premis kilang defendan. Lawatan ini juga tanpa sebarang kawalan dan tanpa keperluan untuk Encik Low Khim Hong melaporkan kehadirannya. Seseorang bekas pengarah syarikat yang sudah lanjut usia yang selalu hadir ke bekas premis syarikatnya dalam keadaan ia mengeluarkan produk mudah terbakar seperti lilin adalah menghairankan sama sekali kecuali saya berpandangan bahawa dia hadir adalah untuk memantau aktiviti pengeluaran syarikat dan pekerja seperti yang didakwa oleh pengadu sendiri. Selain itu, keterangan SD1, Encik Low Hock Ann bahawa pengadu diambil bekerja olehnya tidak disokong dengan mana-mana bukti terutamanya melalui kontrak perkhidmatan, dan keterangannya ini juga bercanggah dengan keterangannya yang lain bahawa setiap kontrak perkhidmatan pekerja baru akan ditandatangani olehnya sendiri. Saya berpendapat keterangan SD1 dalam mahkamah berkenaan permulaan kontrak perkhidmatan antara pengadu dan defendan adalah sesuatu keterangan bersifat penafian semata-mata. S/N NnMurlumgUJ1pVG0oPetw Merujuk kepada isu penamatan pengadu pula, saya berpendapat, di dalam kes ini telah jelas bahawa perkhidmatan pengadu telah ditamatkan oleh pihak defendan melalui bekas pengarah Encik Low Khim Hong pada 28 Ogos 2023 dengan tarikh akhir perkhidmatan adalah pada 29 Ogos 2023.”

This Court accepts the evidence of the Respondent that she was hired by Mr Low in 2015 and that on 28.8.2023 he told her she was terminated.

Although the Appellant contends that Mr Low had already retired in 2009 and was no longer in charge of the operations of the Appellant, but Mr Low was very much a presence in the Appellant’s premises.

The fact that the Respondent turned up for work the next day is not an indication that Mr Low did not terminate her. Rather it is simply that she worked the one extra day because it was the last day of the month.

The DGM was correct in his finding of fact that the Respondent was terminated by the Appellant. This Court has no cause to interfere with this finding of fact. S/N NnMurlumgUJ1pVG0oPetw Was the Respondent entitled to termination benefits

The DGM found that the Appellant had terminated the Respondent without issuing any notice of termination. He referred to section 13(1) Act 265 which reads – “Either party to a contract of service may terminate such contract of service without notice or, if notice has already been given in accordance with section 12, without waiting for the expiry of that notice, by paying to the other party an indemnity of a sum equal to the amount of wages which would have accrued to the employee during the term of such notice or during the unexpired term of such notice.”

The DGM proceeded to compute the Respondent’s termination benefits which added up to RM16,058.83.

The Appellant takes issue with the DGM’s decision because he failed to consider that at the material time the Respondent was 62 and past the minimum age of retirement.

When Mr Low terminated the Respondent, he told her it was because she was 62 years old.

In Colgate Palmolive (M) Sdn Bhd v. Yap Kok Fong & Anorther Appeal [2001] 4 MLJ 97 Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as His Lordship then was) held at 102 – S/N NnMurlumgUJ1pVG0oPetw “The non-existence of a retirement clause in an employment contract cannot mean that no employer can ever bring an employee's service to an end by retiring him at a certain retirement age, or that such an action would be tantamount to dismissal without just cause or excuse.”

Section 4(1) of the Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012 (Act 753) sets the minimum retirement age of an employee at 60 years.

Regulation 4(1) Employment (Termination and Lay-off Benefits) Regulation 1980 reads – “Subject to paragraphs (2),(3) and (4), an employee shall be entitled to termination benefits payment when his contract of service is terminated for any reason whatsoever other than –

by the employer, upon the employee attaining the age of retirement if the contract of service contains a stipulation in that behalf; …”

This Court accepts the Appellant’s submissions that when the statutory provisions are read together with the decision in Colgate Palmolive (supra), the Respondent is not entitled to claim termination benefits because she has passed the minimum retirement age.

The DGM was wrong to disregard the Respondent’s age.